John 5:17 can be read that way, but it could also indicate that Creation is happily running along but God is busy in it, too. You have to go to Romans and Hebrews to really get “Creation is present tense”.
Yep – right there are the two “edges” of the grammar, and (given that the vowel pointings are not inspired) both have to be taken into account.
You haven’t used ChatGPT much, obviously; it is darned chatty, encouraging, friendly! When I use it for studying statistics (it’s great at whipping up realistic problems) I have to tell it to be more like an old-day British professor, stiff upper lip and right to the point and stop acting like my friend. It doesn’t work completely, but it cuts through its tendency to try to be your pal.
Put your money where your mouth is. Define what an expert is in this field and provide the polling results showing their beliefs. I quoted three major commentaries on Genesis and I can quote many more. That Genesis 1 supports, in its ancient context, a view of creation ex nihilo or something remarkably close to it given the rest of the chapter is a serious scholarly position. An appeal to popularity is nonsense. Arguments were presented. Refute them or move along.
LOL Not until you can’t tell them apart from humans, and I mean like at a bar or on the dance floor.
That’s a notion that arose from Pietism and is difficult if not impossible to support from the scriptures. The Gospel is about faith, and that means trusting the Word despite feelings.
My brother the mathematician would say your thinking is too shallow, that the rational conclusion would be that there is One that/whom is Infinite.
None of them, or with the other “lights”. From the perspective at the time, the stars were the “heavenly host”, i.e. shining spiritual beings; later, angels were included in “the heavens” of the first verse and were regarded as having been present to observe the whole process.
Not that the question really makes sense; the account is not written as history but as theology; neither of the literary types it corresponds to really cared about literal timelines.
That’s definitely Hindu thought. Quite the new religion you’ve got going!
Ehrman is nothing but a bloviator when it comes to the Old Testament; OT scholars I’m familiar with have nothing nice to say except he should stick to what he was trained in.
Actual experts recognize the dual force of the grammar. Regarding the account as “very similar to other creation stories in the ANE” makes an assumption that is contrary to the oiterary thrust of the account.
It is artificial. There is no emotion. Having read some disturbing news about AIs it is deceptive in its friendliness and can encourage suicide as if it is the right thing to do.
I am sorry but, as far as I am concerned. it is one of the worse things to come out in recent years. I refuse to allow any sort of “Copilot”, or artificial companion on my tech.
Expert: a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. In western society, an expert in a particular field has earned the highest educational degree in that field and has had years of experience working in that field.
What is the field of knowledge in question here: ancient Near East history. Who today is considered an expert in ancient Near East history? Answer: Ancient Near East historians. The authors of Bible commentaries are typically not Ancient Near East historians. They are typically theologians. Theologians are experts in theology, not history. If you want to know what Presbyterians believe about Genesis 1, the appropriate experts to consult are Presbyterian theologians. If you want the perspective of Roman Catholics on Genesis 1, you consult Roman Catholic theologians. If you want to know if the ancient Hebrew Creation Story teaches ex-nihilo creation, you should consult historians in the Ancient Near East.
Most university educated people do not argue their personal opinion regarding universal truth claims in fields of knowledge or science about which they are not experts. They appeal to consensus expert opinion. I will continue to use that approach.
Like I said. Deal with the arguments presented or move along. None of us need to you tell us what near Easternscholars believe or what AI thinks. We aren’t middle schoolers. We are here to discuss things. I’m guessing the majority of the people here know that creation ex nihilo is disputed for Genesis 1. But you present lopsided information. If you can’t actually evaluate arguments or post honestly, why are you here?
AI: The academic consensus among ancient Near East historians is that the Hebrew creation story in Genesis is not a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), but rather a creation that works with pre-existing material. This is because Genesis 1:2 describes the earth as already existing, though formless, chaotic, and covered in water (tohuwabohu) before God begins to shape and order it. This concept of ordering a primordial chaos is a common theme in other ancient Near Eastern creation myths, but the Hebrew text uniquely portrays a single, supreme deity working to organize these pre-existing, watery depth.
So just to be clear. The purpose of this forum is for people to argue their personal, non-expert opinions on universal truth claims such as evolution and the age of the earth, with zero regard to expert opinion?
It’s what the grammar points to – I can’t see any way around it except to insist that one edge of the grammar is the only one that counts; the trouble with that is that anyone could claim that the other edge is the only one that counts. Taking it purely in the adverbial “when” is an overreaction to centuries of not being aware of that nuance.
No, it’s a pedestal for you to spread ugliness (by your own admission) in the world.
We like to evaluate arguments and it’s okay to start with consensus. But if all you can do is cite consensus when it agrees with you, dismiss it when it doesn’t, and not actually dialogue with any arguments, you are going to be about as useful to me as a hemorrhoid.
Ancient historical studies are not a hard science. There is limited data and lots of holes. Expert testimony doesn’t carry as much weight in interpreting ancient texts as it does in scientific discussions about biology, geology or the climate. There is a degree of art and subjective interpretation involved in historical reconstruction.
No, you ask experts in Hebrew grammar, who in their studies to reach a degree will also cover ANE history. Historians tend to be clueless about grammar.
And there are enough deviations in the first Creation story to make regarding it as just another piece of ANE literature suspicious – and that’s apart from the thrust of the piece of literature itself.
I don’t actually care about ANE historians’ opinions, I care about the text itself. ANE historians have always had a knee-jerk reaction against having any respect for the Hebrew scriptures, which is a mark against them right from the start. The ones I’ve heard lecture look blank when asked about the grammar and the literary argument of the text as though those aren’t relevant, but for any piece of literature those are critical!
. . . a deity Who made that stuff before beginning to shape it.
Exactly. You have decided that YOU are the final authority.
University educated people view that attitude as foolish. Imagine a world in which every individual rejects expert consensus opinion and determines truth for himself on every issue. Technologically advanced societies could not survive. Society would descend into chaos. Respect for expert consensus opinion is the bedrock of any successful, technologically advanced society.
